What Cryptids are the most likely to exist

[Infinity Blade]

Now in your statements you didn't call me incompetent or retarded. Thank you for that

But even if you didn't say it directly It was implied.

No, it wasn't. The most that I actually implied was that I found your logic of "studied by a biologist" unconvincing, especially in this context, when you have every reason to be skeptical of a claim. You are simply seeing something that isn't there. As such, your tirade of people calling you crazy and stupid, that I'm supposedly going to make fun of you in another thread, etc., etc., etc. is completely unnecessary.

Yes, this thread is called "What cryptids are the most likely to exist". But, in addition to people giving their opinions, you know what also qualifies well for this thread? Criticism of said opinions. If I, or you for that matter, want to scrutinize someone else's reasons for thinking *insert cryptid here* is the most likely one to exist, I, or you for that matter, can absolutely do that. That way we're narrowing down our options (or not), and actually keeping with the thread's big ultimate question. "What cryptids are the most likely to exist"? "Well, probably not that one".

[kekistani]

Jun 7, 2020 10:31:20 GMT 5 Ceratodromeus said:

Jun 6, 2020 19:19:04 GMT 5 all said:

I'm not saying that mngwa is definitely real but unlike you I'm willing to consider the possibility. And I believe that there is actually a good chance that it does exist. 

Based on:
- folklore of natives
- "accounts" of sightings without anything remarkable, all of which are dated as having happened  a century ago.
-hearsay

Not a strong nor logical argument for the existence of a novel species of large predatory felid.

The sightings and sign collected (footprints, fur) would all fit an aberrant leopard nicely.

[all]

When they discovered platypus main stream scientist considered it to be a joke.

If there is any place on Earth that can have unusual creatures is the ocean near Tasmania

I realize now that I might have gone too far with assuming that you called me retarded 
Or suggesting dark side of the moon analogy

However unconvinced  is not what was implied 

Unconvinced would sound something like that. 

I find that despite the opinion of the one biologist I don't believe this is necessarily true

Your statements were quite different. 

And you do have a tread that describes statements that you consider ridiculous 

I have read some of those statements.  My statement is far more reasonable than some of the ones posted there


The statement I described was by known scientist. I don't have any more to give you simply because information on this subject is very rare just like information on other cryptids. I simply consider it to be a good platform from which to further the investigation. Just because I can't find more information on internet does not mean that there is no more statements confirming the find by other scientist. But one could find such statements in files of Tasmanian biologist not on the internet. 


What I say is its not unreasonable to consider possibility of such creature to exist. 

Most people here don't even consider this as a possibility simply as nonsense. 

When I first considered  mngwa the first thing that came up is witch doctors. Mau Mau were never seen in those parts as far as I know (Although they did have their headquarters in Kenya so its not impossible but their costumes were made of leopard skin and nothing else) and witch doctors job is not to kill people. As far as Unicorn analogy. Have you ever heard description of Arabian horse, Mustang , and unicorn, in one verse together as if you were talking three different species of horse. probably not. While Natives mention three different cats in one sentence Lion (simba), leopard (nsui) and mgwa. This sounds like description of three different species of cats not two species plus an imaginary one. This description is about one thousand years old. Long before 1920. The information about mngwa happens more than once.
As far as incident in 1920 actually it was completely different than the one with mngwa finding its way to person's hut with which there was some confusion.

There are other examples of mngwa's attacks with bodies actually being mauled and doctors ( not witch doctors but people whose job it was to tend to wounded) bandaging the victims who themselves say that the creature that attacked them was mngwa. 

Spoor of mngwa seems like very little evidence. However those spoors were seen and tracked right after mngwa's attacks and they were clearly described by natives some of which haven's seen the attack but being able to say what creature made it because they encountered Mngwa before and they recognized that spoor as belonging to it.

Those spoors are unique and natives who track animals for living are very good at recognizing what creature they belong to. Whether its mngwa or something else. 



Being logical is a strength but only to some point if person does not even consider a possibility that something can be outside of their scope is just as unrealistic as person who is too quick to believe like myself. 

And just as arrogant.


As far as creature from Tasmania notice it was further down my list of possible creatures than mngwa because of its strange features. 

However as I stated before first time scientist encountered platypus they thought it was a joke. 

And Tasmanian creature being brought by very powerful storm could very well live in deep parts of the ocean of which as you know better than I we know less than surface of the moon. 


Like creature said different points of view are important to pursuing of knowledge but I guess our two points are so completely opposite that we really can't do anything with them. 

Of course I don't know if such a creature actually exists and maybe I'm completely wrong. 

But speaking of pursuit of knowledge being able to look outside the box is just as important as inside. 

And yes perhaps my point of view to same level is wishful thinking. 

But I much rather be someone who believes that there are trees on the sides of the road not just the road itself. And base this belief on just seeing leaves not the whole trees than someone who only sees the road. 

 



 



 

[Infinity Blade]

When they discovered platypus main stream scientist considered it to be a joke.

When they discovered the platypus scientists had a far lesser understanding of just how strange (in our opinions, at least) animals could outwardly appear. But you're talking about some creature with this description.

"Body has color of elephant ivory, resembling consistency of rubber and is impossible to destroy neither by fire or different chemical substances. It however is not rubber nor body in a normal sense of the word or a fruit pulp. It is something that cannot be assigned to any kind of known system"

Now, there are plenty of animals I don't know a whole lot about, like literally any invertebrate. Hell, there are some vertebrates I know less about than others (I know most about amniotes). But there aren't many, if any, real life animals I know of that could quite neatly fit this description. Hell, this Tasmanian creature supposedly "cannot be assigned to any kind of known system". What does that even mean?

The point I'm making here is that there's a difference between thinking a creature isn't real because your civilization hasn't yet thoroughly explored every part of the world and thinking that a creature isn't real when it doesn't fit with what is now a pretty good understanding of what exists within the animal kingdom.

However unconvinced is not what was implied

Unconvinced would sound something like that.

I find that despite the opinion of the one biologist I don't believe this is necessarily true

Your statements were quite different.

You mean these statements?

"studied by a biologist"

You mean a biologist just said a bunch of words? If it was studied, where are all the peer-reviewed scientific articles, rigorous scholarly books (which may use peer-reviewed articles for reference), or any sort of hard data supporting the existence of this Tasmanian creature as described? I mean...

"Body has color of elephant ivory, resembling consistency of rubber and is impossible to destroy neither by fire or different chemical substances. It however is not rubber nor body in a normal sense of the word or a fruit pulp. It is something that cannot be assigned to any kind of known system"

...what? You have every reason to doubt these claims, whether they're from a biologist or not. Extraordinary. Claims. Require. Extraordinary. Evidence.

What was I implying then, if not that I found your logic of "a biologist said so, so I have no reason to doubt him" to be unconvincing?

And you do have a tread that describes statements that you consider ridiculous

I have read some of those statements. My statement is far more reasonable than some of the ones posted there

Never denied that. My point was that I was not going to put what you've said here in that thread after you literally accused me that I would later do it. Guess what? I didn't. I still haven't done it after several hours. And I don't plan on it.

The statement I described was by known scientist. I don't have any more to give you simply because information on this subject is very rare just like information on other cryptids. I simply consider it to be a good platform from which to further the investigation. Just because I can't find more information on internet does not mean that there is no more statements confirming the find by other scientist. But one could find such statements in files of Tasmanian biologist not on the internet.

When you hear or read a claim, but where you heard it from is a questionable (if not unreliable) source of information, and can't find a reliable source of information that corroborates the claim, the rational thing to do next would be to treat the claim with skepticism. This becomes increasingly true the more extraordinary the claim is.

Being logical is a strength but only to some point if person does not even consider a possibility that something can be outside of their scope is just as unrealistic as person who is too quick to believe like myself.

And just as arrogant.

If I don't consider something "outside of my scope" (whatever exactly that means) because no evidence seems to support it, and because we have no good reason to believe such evidence will be found in the future, then no, it is absolutely not as unrealistic or arrogant as being too quick to believe.

[all]

If you told somebody ten years ago that temperature can be below absolute zero they would think you are joking or insane. If you would be a researcher or even a journalist you would lose your job. 

However there is such thing as negative temperature. That of course does not mean that electrons move slower than zero. but it does mean that Boltzmann constant can be put upside down. with negative temperature actually being infinitely  hot with higher energy states appearing more often than lower energy states. 


10 years ago there was no evidence whatsoever that something like that can be possible and lots of evidence against it being possible. Non the less it is possible but to figure it out one must look from more than one perspective.

Now you will probably state that just because scientific journal says so and even very conservative Wikipedia acknowledges the fact that there is something like negative temperature (meaning infinitely hot rather than cold)this is definitely not enough. Or right down ludicrous.  

And you are right I don't have first hand knowledge about it. Simply because I don't have enough knowledge and certainly no resources to make such  experiment.

None the less the idea as I stated is which cryptid you think might be real. Not which one you know is real. 

But lets take more known example on which today everyone agrees on.

To us saying that Earth is flat is absurd.

However couple thousand years ago for people who lived in that time all the evidence pointed to exactly that. And it was perfectly logical for them to think that. And based on their knowledge there was no fallacy in their logic. Only way they could really think otherwise that I can think off is the fact that if you look at the ship from far enough distance you can see ship appear step by step rather than whole at once because of curvature of the Earth. But not all ancient people had telescopes and one has to be relatively high and relatively far away to even notice it. 

You didn't put me on the ridiculous list. I really do appreciate that.

But although I can't say with certainty that Tasmanian creature exists. I'm not saying what it is. or what I think it is.
I simply have no reason to believe that well known biologist would lie about what he discovered. He didn't specify what creature is.
He only specified the reaction that was produced by the tests. And observation of the creature based on its color and shape.

Therefore I believe that consideration that it might be something behind this is worth well considering.  
 
 


  

[Infinity Blade]

If you told somebody ten years ago that temperature can be below absolute zero they would think you are joking or insane. If you would be a researcher or even a journalist you would lose your job.

However there is such thing as negative temperature. That of course does not mean that electrons move slower than zero. but it does mean that Boltzmann constant can be put upside down. with negative temperature actually being infinitely hot with higher energy states appearing more often than lower energy states.


10 years ago there was no evidence whatsoever that something like that can be possible and lots of evidence against it being possible. Non the less it is possible but to figure it out one must look from more than one perspective.

Now you will probably state that just because scientific journal says so and even very conservative Wikipedia acknowledges the fact that there is something like negative temperature (meaning infinitely hot rather than cold)this is definitely not enough. Or right down ludicrous.

You had me and then you lost me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the last paragraph. There is a published peer-reviewed paper presenting evidence for negative temperatures below absolute zero (Braun et al., 2013). That being the case, I'm willing to accept that temperatures below absolute zero are indeed a thing. I'm not beholden to dogma that says it's not.

And you are right I don't have first hand knowledge about it. Simply because I don't have enough knowledge and certainly no resources to make such experiment.

None the less the idea as I stated is which cryptid you think might be real. Not which one you know is real.

You saying that "this thread is which cryptid you think might be real" is missing the point of why I'm engaging in this discussion with you. You say that you think *insert cryptid here* is most likely to exist. And I'm simply here saying that the reasons you've provided for why you think it's one of the cryptids most likely to exist are not reasonable.

But lets take more known example on which today everyone agrees on.

To us saying that Earth is flat is absurd.

However couple thousand years ago for people who lived in that time all the evidence pointed to exactly that. And it was perfectly logical for them to think that. And based on their knowledge there was no fallacy in their logic. Only way they could really think otherwise that I can think off is the fact that if you look at the ship from far enough distance you can see ship appear step by step rather than whole at once because of curvature of the Earth. But not all ancient people had telescopes and one has to be relatively high and relatively far away to even notice it.

People already knew that the Earth was spherical a couple thousand years ago, actually. But aside from that, this is a false equivalence, just like your platypus example. People who didn't know that Earth was spherical -- people who lived before the ancient Greeks figured it out -- did not and could not test their assumptions regarding the shape with any reliability.

But although I can't say with certainty that Tasmanian creature exists. I'm not saying what it is. or what I think it is.
I simply have no reason to believe that well known biologist would lie about what he discovered. He didn't specify what creature is.
He only specified the reaction that was produced by the tests. And observation of the creature based on its color and shape.

Therefore I believe that consideration that it might be something behind this is worth well considering.

See, this is a problem. What even is this thing? No one is sure, apparently. And if no one is sure what it is, then we can't even really test for its existence. Think of it this way: if we wanted to form an if-then-because statement outlining what evidence we should expect to find if it were real, what could we say?

Now, if you were proposing that the Tasmanian creature is most likely a kind of creature that is at least precedented and known to science, then that would be one thing (although, we could argue about that too, as we have with Mngwa, which is at least said to supposedly be a cat). But here's what that biologist supposedly said about it, and what you took his word for.

"Body has color of elephant ivory, resembling consistency of rubber and is impossible to destroy neither by fire or different chemical substances. It however is not rubber nor body in a normal sense of the word or a fruit pulp. It is something that cannot be assigned to any kind of known system"

The way he's describing the thing makes it sound like it's supposed to be part of some hitherto unknown clade of animals with super durability or something.

Again, you bringing up the fact that it's a "well known biologist" stating all of this as if it automatically lends notable credibility to it is exactly the thing I started out arguing against. Biologists are human too. Sometimes they say very questionable, extraordinary things without extraordinary evidence to prove it. Now it would help if said biologist had actually shared his findings in scientific literature (maybe in a book that serves as a collection of scientific works, or of course, just scientific articles peer-reviewed and published in a journal), especially so that other biologists can now see if they can replicate and either corroborate or refute his findings, but...the impression I'm getting is that isn't the case.

[all]

Yes people did know that Earth is circular couple thousand years ago maybe my dates were off. However with the fall of Rome lots of knowledge was lost.  until 15 the century people thought that Sun revolves around the Earth not Earth around the Sun. Some of it was based on religion of the era. but even if this would not be a case it would be perfectly reasonable by them to assume  that Sun circles the Earth rather than Earth around the sun.

As far as unnatural resistance. That might be a stretch

But sun fish can resist harpoon throw. With harpoon simply bouncing off at less its fired with explosive.

Water bear can withstand very high radiation levels.

Can survive temperatures as low as -271 degrees Celsius. As you know -273 is absolute zero

It can survive in vacuum.

All those things are real so I believe that features of Tasmanian creature are not as outlandish as one might think.


And no I can't prove that it is real and keep in mind it was not my first choice as cryptid that might exist.

But I do believe that it is cryptid worth mentioning. 

If real this would be something that no one has ever seen before and its very hard to say what it could and could not do. 

Yes water bear is much much smaller than Tasmanian creature but it is not a bacteria of any kind it is smaller than most insects but largest water bear is about half the size of smallest mayfly. 

Tasmanian creature has no bones which means it is some kind of invertebrate who are usually much more resilient in their environment than vertebrates. 

If real Tasmanian creature would come from depths of the ocean. Great pressures there would mean that by that factor alone it would have to be resilient. 


If someone never seen an arachnid or insect. Just mammals.  One would not be so quick to believe that spiders have eight eyes. 

And although one could believe that they can walk upside down it would be harder to believe that it uses its hair to do it. 



 

[Infinity Blade]

Yes people did know that Earth is circular couple thousand years ago maybe my dates were off. However with the fall of Rome lots of knowledge was lost. until 15 the century people thought that Sun revolves around the Earth not Earth around the Sun. Some of it was based on religion of the era. but even if this would not be a case it would be perfectly reasonable by them to assume that Sun circles the Earth rather than Earth around the sun.

*sigh, yet another false equivalence. You can bring up as many examples of people from the past believing something to be true when it isn't as you want. It is not analogous to the situation with this Tasmanian creature now because any wrong assumptions people may have had about nature, the world, or the universe during ancient, medieval, or even early modern times were not based upon rigorous testing and evidence.

As far as unnatural resistance. That might be a stretch

But sun fish can resist harpoon throw. With harpoon simply bouncing off at less its fired with explosive.

Water bear can withstand very high radiation levels.

Can survive temperatures as low as -271 degrees Celsius. As you know -273 is absolute zero

It can survive in vacuum.

All those things are real so I believe that features of Tasmanian creature are not as outlandish as one might think.


And no I can't prove that it is real and keep in mind it was not my first choice as cryptid that might exist.

But I do believe that it is cryptid worth mentioning.

If real this would be something that no one has ever seen before and its very hard to say what it could and could not do.

Yes water bear is much much smaller than Tasmanian creature but it is not a bacteria of any kind it is smaller than most insects but largest water bear is about half the size of smallest mayfly.

Tasmanian creature has no bones which means it is some kind of invertebrate who are usually much more resilient in their environment than vertebrates.

If real Tasmanian creature would come from depths of the ocean. Great pressures there would mean that by that factor alone it would have to be resilient.


If someone never seen an arachnid or insect. Just mammals. One would not be so quick to believe that spiders have eight eyes.

And although one could believe that they can walk upside down it would be harder to believe that it uses its hair to do it.

The fact that you had to bring up tardigrades, whose durability and survivability amongst animals is utterly exceptional, shows you how much reaching is needed to justify that description you've provided. While it's theoretically possible for another animal to have such durability, it is extremely unlikely.

So far, even if this wasn't your first pick for this thread, the impression I'm getting of this creature is that it's FAR from the most likely cryptid to exist. Unless someone else has anything new or insightful to add, or perchance you do, I think I've said what I need to say here.

[all]

  Not rigorous. Tests done on negative temperature (or lack there off) were very rigorous. There was simply not enough knowledge at the time to come to different conclusion.


Me reaching. That would be true if we saw some kind of different animal and suggested it has those abilities without any information
However we have the information about the reaction of this particular animal to the given tests. Yes biologist could be wrong. This however as we both agreed can be a case  in any situation. (As you said there is always more research needed, and as I said based on the knowledge there always will be factors that can't be predicted) And while answering the question why the results of the tests in this case came out the way they did is very difficult. The tests themselves were very simple. And answering the question what is happening ( or not happening in this case) is pretty straight forward. 

And I still believe that it is something worth looking into. In fact it is the possibility of those features that make that creature worth looking into.

But let us just agree to disagree I think we are both pretty tired. And since you as you mention made your point here. While I made mine. it would make sense to simply stop

[all]

One last question though if you don't mind of course if you don't respond To it I understand its been a long conversation and you are probably little bit upset with me right now

However  suppose ( this is purely hypothetical) you have a chance to go to Tasmania to see the creature for yourself. (supposedly some one caught a second sample)  The plane ticket and the hotel are all paid for by somebody else ( not that I'm offering even if I wanted to I don't have the resources) You have no prior engagements.


Would you go?

   

[creature386]

One more thing about the tardigrade analogy:

The problem with the Tasmanian creatures attributes isn't that they are counterintuitive. It is that they would, if true, contradict well-established models of biology we would have, i.e. the theory of evolution. Evolutionary models have no trouble accounting for tardigrades. The Tasmanian creature would be a whole different kind of beast though, as it would require a mammal to lose many traits that are plesiomorphic to the mammal condition including, you know, the basic chemical makeup of a metazoan.
While previously well-established theories have certainly been overwritten, such paradigm shifts always required substantial amounts of evidence pointing in another direction. That's because well-established scientific theories normally only get overwritten once in a century (which means the evidence that appears to contradict them vastly outnumbers the evidence that does actually contradict them).

Sorry if this was confusing. What I'm just saying is that the Tasmanian creature massively contradicts known animal biology in a way tardigrades don't and that we would need very strong evidence to justify belief in such a creature.

[Infinity Blade]

Mngwa's just supposed to be a donkey-sized cat. The creature you're thinking of is this so-called "Tasmanian creature".

[all]

As Infinity Blade said Mngwa is simply a large cat. Although I do believe it to be a new species of cat. 

As far as Tasmanian creature well you are right extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Non the less  negative temperature does not fit any model that would be available in Newton's time.  Nor would quantum mechanics in general. The idea of Wave particle duality from a logical point of view quite contradictory. how can something behave like a particle at certain times while as a wave in others. But this might somehow be accepted by scientist of newton times ( although definitely not church or common person). But it's not the case with negative temperature. 

The idea that something can move from hot to cold and then cold to hot seems to go against very laws of entropy. it does not under those circumstances but it sure appears that way.

But if you believe this is simply impossible and it does not agree with second law of thermodynamics than lets take example that more people can agree on.

If i'm not mistaken according to quantum mechanics direction of moving electron is not decided until it is observed. And what something ends up being  depends on how it is observed. Not the perception of it but what it actually becomes.

Now i'm not scientist but I think this is correct. 

However if you said this to someone in Newtonian times. Maybe even man as intelligent as Newton. They would think that this can't be and that it goes against very laws of nature. 

But Creature I will ask you same thing as I asked Infinity Blade. Do you think case of Tasmanian creature should at least be pursued further.

And as i said. 

If they found another sample. Would you go to Tasmania to find the answer for yourself one way or another. Providing Plane ticket was paid for so would the hotel and you had no prior arrangements. All you had to do is show up. 

Do you think this would at least worthy of consideration.

Or simply so outlandish  to even bother

[creature386]

Assuming time and money are no considerations, I'd be absolutely in favor of a plane trip. Interesting claims are almost always worth looking into if they do not require too much time or resources to do so.

[all]

Thank you for that I do appreciate it